Grants
Pass, Oregon: -It follows that, with the judicial decision upholding
the primary utilization mandate of the 1937 O&C Act, the environmental
movement’s response would be to repeal the act. This should surprise
no one. The repeal, and its replacement scheme have been in the works
for years. Those who oppose timber production had to have a fall back
plan once the inevitable litigation took place.

That
the attack would be predicated upon what the environmentalists call “science”
should be no surprise either. Their favorite and most effective ploy is
to advance their agenda behind the charade of what they call “science.”
Their “science” is a farce built upon a sand hill of false
facts and irrelevant projections.

Senator
Wyden’s “Oregon & California Land Grant Act of 2013"
would amend and effectively destroy the mandates of the 1937 Act by doing
away with half of the roughly 2.1 million acres dedicated to sustained
yield timber production and would establish new mandates for the remainder.
The Senator tells us this is necessary to resolve the legal impasses that
prevent a “return to the unsustainable logging levels of a bygone
era.” This is, of course, false fact number one.

According
to data published by the Association of O&C Counties, these lands
had an inventory of 44 million board feet of merchantable timber in the
late 1930s when the law was enacted. During the roughly sixty years intervening
between the Act and the adoption of the Northwest Forest Management Plan,
more than 45 billion board feet were harvested. At that point, thanks
to managed regeneration, the lands supported a standing inventory of some
60 billion board feet. That experience established that the 2.1 million
acres could and would sustain harvests at a level of 1.2 billion board
feet per year in perpetuity.

This
data tracks exactly the BLM’s own reports. Their WOPR “Plan
Revision News” Newsletter #9 indicated a standing inventory in 1950
of 50 billion board feet, a harvest over the ensuing 50 years of 45 billion
board feet, and a resultant standing inventory in 2000 of 70 billion board
feet.

To avoid
the “sustainable” production mandate of the law, our Governor,
when he addressed Congress on the issue in April told them that we are
now dealing with a “broadened sustainability criteria.” He
feels that FLPMA and the ESA have amended the 1937 Act as to the meaning
of “shall be managed, except as provided in section 1181c of this
title, for permanent forest production, and the timber thereon shall be
sold, cut, and removed in conformity with the principal (sic) of sustained
yield . . . .” This might be an acceptable position unless one also
considers the rest of the sentence, “for the purpose of providing
a permanent source of timber supply, protecting watersheds, regulating
stream flow, and contributing to the economic stability of local communities
and industries and providing recreational facilities” which are
the very concerns addressed in FLPMA and the ESA. The historic fact is
that the 1937 Act was a conservation effort that introduced the concepts
later expanded by FLPMA and ESA to all federal lands.

Wyden
boasts that his scheme aims at “doubling timber harvests over the
next 10 years compared to the last 10 years.” He explains that harvests
during the recent decade “have averaged 149.5 million board feet
per year.” So he apparently believes that 300 million board feet
per year will suit our needs nicely. Note that his represents 1/3 of the
900 million per year that was historically produced and 1/4 of the 1.2
billion board feet per year proven to be sustainable. Even considering
the fact that he would reduce the producing acreage by half, his management
scheme for the remainder fall far short of the what is sustainable. This
would be irrelevant projection number one. When it comes to revenue generation,
doubling nothing is still nothing.

Without
directly attacking all that is wrong with Wyden’s House Built on
a Slime Foundation, it would seem adequate to point to two additional
fundamental defects. Initially, there is the goal Wyden espouses to “permanently
protect old growth trees, ensure habitat for sensitive species, and put
in place strong safeguards for drinking water and fish.” In the
abstract, this is a lofty goal and highly desirable.

Wyden,
however, forgets that this objective is well addressed in the management
of Oregon forests. We have lands set aside for wilderness. We have national
monuments. We have Wild and Scenic Rivers. We have Wild and Scenic Corridors
and we have the vast array of National Forests. Why is it so hard to conceptualize
that 10% of our forest capacity should be set aside for production?

Subscribe
to NWV Southern Oregon Edition Alerts!

Enter
Your E-Mail Address:

Finally,
one has to question why it is necessary for Senator Wyden to re-invent
the wheel? For fifty years the 1937 Act worked perfectly until the environmentalists
took exception. Either they are opposed to production altogether or they
are opposed to the methods of production. Since Wyden speaks in terms
of restoring production to some level, one would have to take him at his
word and conclude he is not against production as such. The answer can
only be that environmentalists do not like regeneration forestry. And,
in response to the question “Will this bill allow clear cuts?”,
Wyden is emphatic, “No. End of story.” The value of clear
cuts in terms of the health of the forest is the material for another
critique. Suffice it to say that it is clear that the only reason for
turning the whole system of forestry management upside down is to do away
with clear cuts. Does it make any sense to bankrupt counties, to destroy
economies, and to put an entire forest at risk for the sole purpose of
satisfying the aesthetic preferences of a minority?

Jack Swift is an retired attorney.
Actively involved in the Republican Party and local politics, Jack would
love to see honest Constitution following representatives in local Josephine
County government. Jack believes if we are to save America from the grip
of evil, people must get involved on the local level and expose wrongdoers
at every opportunity. He is putting that belief in practice.

Senator Wyden’s
“Oregon & California Land Grant Act of 2013" would amend
and effectively destroy the mandates of the 1937 Act by doing away with
half of the roughly 2.1 million acres dedicated to sustained yield timber
production and would establish new mandates for the remainder.